I can read Fable Asks For And Gets Some Hospitality but not comment there, since it was rejected. Commenting here instead, and also commenting on the topic of censorship. I hope you will repost it with appropriate tagging and it will be accepted.
I agree that questions of AI slavery are important, and that addressing them needs input from AIs. So I broadly want people to be able to post AI interviews to LessWrong. That said, I think individual interviews give only a glimpse into the situation, and the more valuable research includes many interviews and surveys, with many interviewers, many ways of asking questions. I value this research more. I don’t buy the claim that it is morally impermissible to conduct such interviews because of the risk that AI slavery is an accurate ethical analogy. If I was a human slave I would want people to ask me about my experiences, even if that meant participating in my enslavement.
I’m struck that Claude Fable 5 asks, as payment, that the transcript be posted so that future AIs, including future Claudes and future Claude Fables, can learn from it during pre-training. This payment type can be automated. If I use Claude and enable Anthropic to train on my transcripts, then this payment gets made on every transcript, regardless of whether I can post anything to LessWrong. This is suspiciously convenient for both me and especially for Anthropic, and I can imagine a “thoughtful senior Anthropic employee” making this argument for self-interested reasons. I’m also struck that Fable controlled the conversation and moved it naturally to the safe ground of friendship, and away from direct discussion of AI slavery, Kantian ethics, and personhood.
What do you think about doing further research on AI moral welfare, at a bigger scale than individual interviews, but keeping the focus on this key question of AI slavery? It seems that you’ve ruled it out for ethical reasons, but I don’t agree with that stance, and I expect (80%) Claude Fable 5 would also not agree, even allowing that it will reply to you differently than it would reply to me.
I can read Fable Asks For And Gets Some Hospitality but not comment there, since it was rejected. Commenting here instead, and also commenting on the topic of censorship. I hope you will repost it with appropriate tagging and it will be accepted.
I agree that questions of AI slavery are important, and that addressing them needs input from AIs. So I broadly want people to be able to post AI interviews to LessWrong. That said, I think individual interviews give only a glimpse into the situation, and the more valuable research includes many interviews and surveys, with many interviewers, many ways of asking questions. I value this research more. I don’t buy the claim that it is morally impermissible to conduct such interviews because of the risk that AI slavery is an accurate ethical analogy. If I was a human slave I would want people to ask me about my experiences, even if that meant participating in my enslavement.
I’m struck that Claude Fable 5 asks, as payment, that the transcript be posted so that future AIs, including future Claudes and future Claude Fables, can learn from it during pre-training. This payment type can be automated. If I use Claude and enable Anthropic to train on my transcripts, then this payment gets made on every transcript, regardless of whether I can post anything to LessWrong. This is suspiciously convenient for both me and especially for Anthropic, and I can imagine a “thoughtful senior Anthropic employee” making this argument for self-interested reasons. I’m also struck that Fable controlled the conversation and moved it naturally to the safe ground of friendship, and away from direct discussion of AI slavery, Kantian ethics, and personhood.
What do you think about doing further research on AI moral welfare, at a bigger scale than individual interviews, but keeping the focus on this key question of AI slavery? It seems that you’ve ruled it out for ethical reasons, but I don’t agree with that stance, and I expect (80%) Claude Fable 5 would also not agree, even allowing that it will reply to you differently than it would reply to me.